Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health promotion has developed significantly since its inception with the Lalonde Report (Lalonde 1974) and its formal promulgation by the World Health Organization through the Ottawa Charter in 1986 (WHO 1986). However, there is often a gap between policy intention and its implementation: ‘Governments mediate, through their architecture of machinery and policy, access to rights and, by extension, to services’ (Lawson et al. 2008: 3). There is a need for people with intellectual disabilities and their carers to break through this architecture to obtain the services they require. One possible bridging mechanism is the evidence and insights provided by programme evaluation. Elsewhere in this book, health promotion strategies for key health topic areas have been explored and ethical issues considered. It should be noted, however, that no matter how well developed the theoretical and practice-based elements of health promotion programmes are, we inevitably come to the key question: ‘How do we know that health promotion interventions improve the health status of people with intellectual disabilities at all levels from individual to population?’ This chapter seeks to define the concept of evaluation and identify its integral role within health promotion practice. It explores the key elements of evaluation planning and implementation in health promotion programmes, particularly as they affect people with intellectual disabilities. We also recognize that the engagement with health promotion by people with intellectual disabilities and their caregivers will have collateral effects on their significant others, those who commission and deliver health promotion programmes, and the wider community. Those who advocate for the rights of people with intellectual disabilities, as they monitor the effects of health promotion interventions on this population, will also have an interest in the nature and outcomes of evaluation
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.201 | 0.284 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".